Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

I assume everyone here is likely familiar with the classic philosophical question about a train being about to hit 5 people, but you can save them, but only by causing the death of a single person?

 

I'm not sure that in my life I expected to ever encounter a situation as clearly reminiscent of that thought experiment as I consider this election to be.  I assume that for every policy of Clinton's that I disagree with Trump will do the same or worse.  Which means that I expect that for every death Clinton's presidency will cause, a Trump presidency is likely to cause 2-5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true, that merely as a businessman, Trump hasn't been afforded the opportunities to engage in the morally awful practices of foreign policy that a secretary of state is responsible for. I fail to see how that makes people in the Middle East and Latin America safer under a Trump administration. We know that Trump has been signaling he wants to give Russia a freer hand in its foreign policy practices, and he seems uninterested in upholding diplomatic norms that have been in place since WWII to make the world relatively more peaceful. He has also openly advocated for torture, and doing horrible things not just to people that commit violent acts, but also against family members. Both of those directions strike me as increasing the amount of violence inflicted on peaceful people, not the other way around. Perhaps he is simply exhibiting campaign bluster, and we'll see a conventional Republican foreign policy agenda. That is still an agenda that for the last few decades has consistently been more ruthless and bloodthirsty than even the most hawkish alignments from Democratic candidates.

 

The wide expanse of the U.S. military-industrial complex being what it is, U.S. foreign policy is aggressively horrible and violent even under the reigns of relatively dovish leaders like Jimmy Carter. You need a much more radical transformation than just who is heading up that organization to change that. But I'd still rather have someone that engages in modern statecraft heading that up than someone who wants to take foreign policy in the direction of the Roman Empire. I can't think of an election where the notion of "both parties are equally awful" has been less true.

 

I'm not saying that the Middle East and Latin America would be safer under a hypothetical Trump presidency. I pointedly did not say that, because I don't believe it would be true. I'm just saying that millions of lives are going to be destroyed, no matter who we elect, and the fact that virtually everyone I know is getting up in arms now because some of those lives might be American if Trump is elected makes framing the choice in terms of privilege feel really shitty to me.

 

I assume everyone here is likely familiar with the classic philosophical question about a train being about to hit 5 people, but you can save them, but only by causing the death of a single person?

 

I'm not sure that in my life I expected to ever encounter a situation as clearly reminiscent of that thought experiment as I consider this election to be.  I assume that for every policy of Clinton's that I disagree with Trump will do the same or worse.  Which means that I expect that for every death Clinton's presidency will cause, a Trump presidency is likely to cause 2-5. 

 

To be completely fair, Trump vocally opposes the TPP, something that Clinton has only recently come to oppose after helping to craft the deal and traveling to something like thirty countries to promote it. The Democratic Party still supports the TPP, despite Sanders' urgings to reject it, because they don't want to embarrass Obama, which is... worrisome. Anyway, stopped clocks and so on. Otherwise I agree with you completely, I'm just saying that it's not "privilege" that gives people occasion to have misgivings about Clinton. It's words versus deeds and an awareness that US foreign policy has been overwhelmingly monstrous since the beginning of the Cold War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume everyone here is likely familiar with the classic philosophical question about a train being about to hit 5 people, but you can save them, but only by causing the death of a single person?

 

This game helped me understand the absurdity of the trolley problem analogy more fully. Personally I feel like the situation is much more similar to Twitch Plays Pokemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, there is an equal amount of privilege at work in saying "nothing Clinton does could possibly be as bad as anything Trump does." At this point, Trump has been directly responsible for zero lives destroyed, while Clinton's four years as secretary of state has been directly responsible for the destruction of millions of lives of men, women, and children of color in Libya and Syria, the sabotage of the economy and the hijacking of the government in Haiti, sending refugees back to Honduras where women and LGBT individuals are especially suffering from loss of their human rights, and so on. It's literally a "devil you know vs. devil you don't" situation, so I find it galling for it to be constantly implied to me that any hesitance to throw my support behind Clinton is a personal failing, coming out of pettiness and a lack of perspective. The fear of a Trump presidency is fundamentally the fear that the US government will do to US citizens what it has been doing (and what it will continue to do, I assume) to the rest of the world for decades. I understand that that's a fear that's worth keeping from coming to pass, because our government treats Latin America and the Arab world pretty terribly overall, but it's not "privilege" that's staying my hand here.

 

If your point is that the US government has been doing these things to the rest of the world for "decades," and will continue to do so regardless of who is elected, then how exactly is Clinton "directly responsible"? By your own logic, it seems reasonable to assume that ANYONE involved in administering US foreign policy at such a senior level would be culpable in your eyes. If that is the case, the salient factor is what ELSE the candidate is likely to do that isn't already essentially pre-written, and on that score there is an overwhelming amount of difference. If you are going to deride that kind of distinction as a mere manifestation of privilege, then what is even the point of engaging in discussion of presidential politics in the first place? If it's simply to express frustration, fine. Everyone has that right, of course. But at the end of the day there are two candidates who actually have any chance of becoming president, and if foreign policy isn't going to undergo a seismic shift anyway because history suggests it never will (and I'm essentially adopting your assumptions for the purpose of this discussion), then the focus should be on the policy that can change, or can continue to be improved.

 

On a separate note, but to me, much more importantly: Liberals must focus more on downticket elections. Republicans have done an amazing job at this over the last decade, including basically locking in the House for possibly a generation by focusing on winning statehouses from 2008 on and dramatically redrawing district lines in 2010. The picking apart of presidential candidates by the left is extremely tiresome in part because without backing up the presidency with local, state, and federal offices, the president can do little more than either continue current policy or veto far more extreme right-wing policy. (And of course the president cannot veto the Supreme Court, which now only lacks a clear conservative majority due to a fairly unlikely death.) If Hillary Clinton is elected, and especially if the Democrats don't take back the Senate, I fully expect her to be just as stymied, if not more, than Barack Obama was, from day one. Frankly it's a miracle that even something as limited and imperfect as Obamacare got passed, and that sure won't last if the Republicans have both the White House and Congress. (I'm not expecting them to but it's becoming more likely by the week.) Meanwhile Democrats fight over $12 and $15 minimum wage as though either of those is something an essentially-guaranteed-Republican House of Representatives is going to pass. I hope we do raise the minimum wage but that's the kind of thing you get to do when you control the legislative branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your point is that the US government has been doing these things to the rest of the world for "decades," and will continue to do so regardless of who is elected, then how exactly is Clinton "directly responsible"? By your own logic, it seems reasonable to assume that ANYONE involved in administering US foreign policy at such a senior level would be culpable in your eyes. If that is the case, the salient factor is what ELSE the candidate is likely to do that isn't already essentially pre-written, and on that score there is an overwhelming amount of difference. If you are going to deride that kind of distinction as a mere manifestation of privilege, then what is even the point of engaging in discussion of presidential politics in the first place? If it's simply to express frustration, fine. Everyone has that right, of course. But at the end of the day there are two candidates who actually have any chance of becoming president, and if foreign policy isn't going to undergo a seismic shift anyway because history suggests it never will (and I'm essentially adopting your assumptions for the purpose of this discussion), then the focus should be on the policy that can change, or can continue to be improved.

 

In terms of saying that Clinton is "directly responsible" for certain foreign policy decisions, I'm speaking beyond the background awfulness of foreign policy by the US to the actions that she took to spearhead the "lead from behind" coalition against Libya, against many of her advisors' counsel, and to intervene in Honduras and Haiti at the behest of longtime family friends in return for, among other benefits, a gold-mining contract awarded to her brother and multiple donations to the Clinton Foundation. Any senior official in the post-9/11 US government is going to be culpable, sure, but Clinton is more culpable than most and I'm not going to throw my hands up at the subtlety of that distinction or accept that it's "unfettered oblivious privilege" to find myself disliking Clinton while Trump exists.* That immediate antipathy towards reservations or other kinds of dissent, even when that dissent is qualified by and grounded in the facts of Clinton's career, is the most frustrating part of interactions that I've had with supporters of Clinton, both in 2008 and now.

 

Basically, I think that, just because something is preordained because of how politics has shaken out in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be criticized. In fact, I feel like it should be criticized, so as not to fall into a "lesser evil" trap of papering over the well-established negatives of one option just because a much worse option exists (and, seemingly, will always exist, although this year does feel like a nadir). I've been voting down the line in every single election for the past two and a half years, which accomplishes somewhat more than it did when I lived in Texas, so it's not like I'm sitting on my ass and complaining while doing nothing for the cause. I'm just also going to criticize Clinton, when applicable, because I think her record is terrible for the party of FDR, Kennedy, and Carter and I'm a little nonplussed by the way that Clinton has been anointed as the messiah to save us from the devil that is Trump when both candidates have done little besides trading in fear. Clinton has my vote, in all likelihood, but I'm not happy about it and I can only hope that it doesn't irreparably damage our democracy for me to let people know that we deserve more and better options. That's one of the ways that protest works, keeping in mind that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously vote for a candidate while also being critical of their more problematic or pernicious aspects.

 

 

* For a non-male, non-white, non-cis perspective on this particular feeling, this Medium post is good albeit very, very angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually had a useful sharing-of-perspective conversation with my republican-voting father-in-law this weekend. He opened up to subtlety from his typically dogmatic slogans largely because I agreed that Hillary Clinton was a crook when he accused her of being one. I was able to then talk about how I'm also disappointed in some of Obama's decisions, but that George W. Bush's fuck-ups were significantly more harmful to the U.S. and our victims. After admitting the faults I perceive in Democratic leadership, he was more willing to listen to my concerns about Trump's misogyny, white-supremacy, and isolationism. He'll still vote for Trump, but I appreciated getting a chance to have a more substantial discussion than the  two of us just waving flags at each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like every discussion I've had this election, with people supporting all sides, has eventually turned into this weird accusatory battle where we end up telling each other that a vote for X is a vote for Y.  All my pro trump friends say a vote for Johnson or stein is just as good as a vote for Hillary, and a vote for Trump by my Hillary supporting friends.  I can't help but feel like it's little more than an attempt to shame someone into voting your way. and even seems like an argument against the democratic process.  I just can't accept this premise that votes are only useful based on the result of the election, I mean if the candidate you voted for didn't win, did your vote not matter?  For all of you that voted or caucused for Bernie in the primary, did your votes not matter? Either voting has value in and of itself, or it only has value if it produces a winning candidate.  If I decide to vote for Johnson or Stein, that isn't me taking a vote away from Hillary, she isn't entitled to my vote just because she's running against a human dumpster fire.  Yes, it is undeniable that the republican and democratic parties have an overwhelming degree of control on US elections, but at a certain point a cause of that has to be this idea that they are the only two parties who can run serious campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a first past the post system that in its DNA restricts the number of viable candidates. Since our parties are really just coalitions of disparate groups, a 3rd party's platform will be adopted by one of the main 2 parties if it hits critical mass. Voting for a 3rd party candidate will not force a runoff election, it will mostly serve to take away votes from the candidate closest on the political spectrum to that 3rd party candidate. I think it's kind of irresponsible or naiive to think that a vote for Jill Stein in a swing state is much more than a protest vote that could end in the presidency of Trump. (Likewise a vote for Johnson and a presidency for Clinton.)

 

Protest voting in states that are decided by significant margins, I can understand, swing states, less so.

 

Like I said like 8 posts ago, vote in your down ticket races if you want to find the candidate closest to you in regards to policy. I think Clinton is an imperfect candidate, but the Democratic platform this year gives me hope. Legitimately.

 

I would rather someone vote for Jill Stein and down ticket races, than not vote at all, but I would encourage them (and Johnson voters) to think about what it is they want to get out of that vote. Do they want to voice their discontent with the system? Is it because they feel that Stein/Johnson/another 3rd party candidate most accurately aligns with their personal policy beliefs? are they just mad that their candidate didn't win the party nomination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a first past the post system that in its DNA restricts the number of viable candidates. Since our parties are really just coalitions of disparate groups, a 3rd party's platform will be adopted by one of the main 2 parties if it hits critical mass. Voting for a 3rd party candidate will not force a runoff election, it will mostly serve to take away votes from the candidate closest on the political spectrum to that 3rd party candidate. I think it's kind of irresponsible or naiive to think that a vote for Jill Stein in a swing state is much more than a protest vote that could end in the presidency of Trump. (Likewise a vote for Johnson and a presidency for Clinton.)

 

Protest voting in states that are decided by significant margins, I can understand, swing states, less so.

 

Like I said like 8 posts ago, vote in your down ticket races if you want to find the candidate closest to you in regards to policy. I think Clinton is an imperfect candidate, but the Democratic platform this year gives me hope. Legitimately.

 

I would rather someone vote for Jill Stein and down ticket races, than not vote at all, but I would encourage them (and Johnson voters) to think about what it is they want to get out of that vote. Do they want to voice their discontent with the system? Is it because they feel that Stein/Johnson/another 3rd party candidate most accurately aligns with their personal policy beliefs? are they just mad that their candidate didn't win the party nomination?

 

I take your point regarding the likelihood of a candidate to win, but this comment is reflective of the idea that votes are only valuable depending on the result of the overall vote.  Votes are not transactions, votes are not bets, why should we judge their value on the overall result or their likelihood of success?  What you are effectively saying here is either vote for the candidate you think is going to win, or vote in a way that won't significantly affect the election at all.  It's almost as though the only useful voting strategy is to treat it like a bet--either put it on a sure thing or a longshot.

 

To say that a vote for stein is a vote for Trump or a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary assumes that one of those two are entitled to your vote, and your action is tantamount to theft if you don't give it to them.  Not all votes for third party candidates are necessarily votes for their mainstream counterparts.  People like to make a big deal about Nader, but remember that Bush won something like 12% of the democratic vote.  That would have easily won Gore the election in 2000, not to mention polling shows Nader pulled equally from both sides, and even then in an amount that pales in comparison to the previous percentage.  I can see why this argument is compelling, but ultimately it's scapegoating.  I see this argument made all the time, and without even considering the ideological argument for casting your vote, under every in depth analysis I've come across the situation described here simple does not pan out.

 

As I see it this is Clinton's campaign to lose.  She had more votes in the primaries, against a much tougher opponent, has a larger support base, more money, leads him in the polls and virtually every other advantage.  If Trump wins the election it won't be because Jill Stein took votes away from her, it'll be because she messed up royally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the purpose of an election is to pick who will hold that office, and by extension who you DON'T want in office.

You want someone to win and someone to lose. Spoiler candidates are a weakness of first past the post elections.

Since the first one to 50% + 1 vote wins, every vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the ultimate winner, essentially. It's a zero sum game and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken out of the pool of the 2 viable candidates. That's why it's a vote for the ultimate winner. I think people point this out as Stein being a vote for Trump because, in the event that Trump won, that would be true and I assume would be more upsetting to a Stein supporter than a Clinton win. It is trying to scare third party voters into voting for the major party candidate closest to them as to avoid a situation where they accidentally contribute to the victory of a candidate they would really regret having in office by remaining petty or ideologically pure.

I quite literally asked what an individual's motivation for voting for a third party candidate was. Everyone brings their own mindset to how they approach voting. It may be that they want the party to get public funding. It may be pure spite and pettiness. I get that. I don't think it's unreasonable to interrogate those reasons though, and I think voting for a third party candidate in a presidential election is mostly asking for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only vote to have an actual effect on the outcome and that's what matters most so likelihood of a candidate winning is absolutely critical or I would vote for myself every election.

 

But I also hate this weird logic that not voting for Hillary is somehow a half of a vote for Trump... not voting for Hillary is exactly that, not voting for Hillary.  It does make her weaker which in 2 party race makes the opposition relatively stronger yes, but it is absolutely no way a half vote for Trump.

 

I have lot of dislikes towards what Hillary's platform represent but I would ask any of my fellow Sanders supporters during the primary to vote for her out of practical concerns.  Key is ask tho, this shaming I see so frequently online is doing no favor in earning her those votes IMO.

 

Edit: pretty much what jennegatron says, at least I think my views are pretty similar.

 

Edit2: also in ways I think this year's primaries actually emulated some good of what other nation's multi party politics with their variable coalitions do so perhaps the two party system of USA is not completely lost either.  Like on negative side we got an ass like Trump but on the other end we also got Sanders on national platform albeit briefly but still it was something.  If this trend (minus Trump-likes I hope) continues then primaries could legit serve as that open ground for more fine tuned vote and accumulating bargaining power.  But in the end government is all about compromises so we have to answer exactly who are we compromising with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the first one to 50% + 1 vote wins, every vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the ultimate winner, essentially. It's a zero sum game and a vote for a third party candidate is a vote taken out of the pool of the 2 viable candidates. That's why it's a vote for the ultimate winner. I think people point this out as Stein being a vote for Trump because, in the event that Trump won, that would be true and I assume would be more upsetting to a Stein supporter than a Clinton win. It is trying to scare third party voters into voting for the major party candidate closest to them as to avoid a situation where they accidentally contribute to the victory of a candidate they would really regret having in office by remaining petty or ideologically pure.

 

This is the part I take issue with, the fact that the two highest profile candidates automatically have some kind of ownership of the votes, and all votes cast are only considered based on what real or imaged effect the vote has on them.  If this is a zero sum game, isn't a vote for the first runner up the same as one for a third party candidate?  what makes the first runner up somehow different than a third party candidate if we're going to judge votes based on the outcome of a zero sum contest?  if I decide to vote for Johnson (effectively a vote for Hillary by this reasoning), and Hillary wins would my vote no longer be a protest vote?  If I vote for Stein and Hillary wins, what is my vote then?  Would my candidate no longer be a protest candidate?  Let's say we had 3 major parties instead of 2, as has happened in a few elections.  which one is running the spoiler candidate? which candidate would they be spoiling?  The answer to these and all other related questions relies on one thing--which major candidate the person answering is making a case for.  This is what I find frustrating about this kind of thinking, in both purpose and method it is an attempt to trivialize any candidate that isn't the preferred of the speaker.  A vote for trump is a vote for trump, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary, and a vote for anyone else is exactly and only a vote for them.  A candidate being ideologically similar, but coming from a larger party, does not make them somehow a better version of whatever candidate you would prefer.  The argument ideologically is unsound, pragmatically unproven, and I personally find it's purpose loathsome.  

 

Sorry if I'm coming off overly abrasive here, I don't mean to attack you or anything, it's just that I've heard this argument from both camps, with literally the names switched around and I'm absolutely fed up with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, is there any actual dispute here that either Trump or Hillary is going to win the presidential election?

Assuming not, isn't each vote effectively +1, -1, or 0?

I mean I get that there's a bit more significance to a vote as sending a signal, but, like... pragmatically, aren't these the actual realistic potential outcomes of the election?

So... what? Why is this an infuriating stance? No one needs to support her beyond this one thing, but if this is effectively a two person race, I at least feel pretty confident about which president I would rather have.

Your vote is, as always, yours to spend, but it's a vote not a wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, is there any actual dispute here that either Trump or Hillary is going to win the presidential election?

Assuming not, isn't each vote effectively +1, -1, or 0?

I mean I get that there's a bit more significance to a vote as sending a signal, but, like... pragmatically, aren't these the actual realistic potential outcomes of the election?

So... what? Why is this an infuriating stance? No one needs to support her beyond this one thing, but if this is effectively a two person race, I at least feel pretty confident about which president I would rather have.

Your vote is, as always, yours to spend, but it's a vote not a wish.

 

Well no negative, it's just +1 for either or 0 for both.

 

If there were such thing as a negative vote that would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to frame it that way since it conveys the idea of a two-point swing more effectively. Put whichever candidate you prefer on either side of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this argument in Slack a few times, but I wanted to chime in here.

I live in a blue state where Trump came in 3rd during the primaries. If he wins the state it will because of a massive failure of Hillary's (Obama won Minnesota by 10% in 2008 and 7% in 2012). Because of this if I vote for her it will be effectively pointless, she will be well beyond the 50%+1. As a result I would much rather put my vote where it could actually have some, even tiny, effect and that is why I will vote green. I will be voting for democrats in down ticket elections, unless they have no opponent and I will for sure vote yes on our two citywide ballot initiatives. Professional insurance requirement for police and a $15 minimum wage because those two are where my vote will have the greatest impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like to make a big deal about Nader, but remember that Bush won something like 12% of the democratic vote.

What does this mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean?

I assume its either 12% of people that previously voted for Clinton or 12% of people voted for Bush and then democrats down ticket.

The Nader blame is so annoying, Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election because of the electoral college. He actually won in Florida but messed up how he requested the recount. Florida had these horribly designed ballots that ended up having tons of people accidentally vote for the wrong candidates. The supreme court ended up deciding the election by ending the recount even though it is unclear if they actually had the power to do so. Gore also didn't run a particularly inspiring campaign. But sure its 100% Nader's fault. (Not saying anyone here was blaming him, its just something that bugs me and I don't even really like Nader.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, in your best judgment, casting a vote for a third party is the best way to affect long-term change, then that is 100% fine (imo). I just want to see people actually considering the pragmatic results of their efforts rather than just voting to spite a candidate who is otherwise their best bet in an extremely worrying election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, in your best judgment, casting a vote for a third party is the best way to affect long-term change, then that is 100% fine (imo). I just want to see people actually considering the pragmatic results of their efforts rather than just voting to spite a candidate who is otherwise their best bet in an extremely worrying election.

Our politics are too focused on personalities, we need to get better about separating policies and people. Just because Bernie didn't win doesn't mean we can't keep pushing for the policies he supported. Similarly don't vote for or against someone just because you like or dislike them.

 

I suppose it's a problem related to our system of people owning their own legislative seat and directly elected executives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, is there any actual dispute here that either Trump or Hillary is going to win the presidential election?

Assuming not, isn't each vote effectively +1, -1, or 0?

I mean I get that there's a bit more significance to a vote as sending a signal, but, like... pragmatically, aren't these the actual realistic potential outcomes of the election?

So... what? Why is this an infuriating stance? No one needs to support her beyond this one thing, but if this is effectively a two person race, I at least feel pretty confident about which president I would rather have.

Your vote is, as always, yours to spend, but it's a vote not a wish.

The Libertarian candidate, Gary Genericname or whoever, wants to get enough votes so that neither Clinton nor Trump gets 270 electoral votes, at which point the election gets tossed to the House of Representatives. I mean, that won't happen, but it's at least possible, and the way the math works I think it happens if he grabs a bunch of Clinton voters (plus a bunch of Trump voters, which is more plausible) in a couple key swing states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Libertarian candidate, Gary Genericname or whoever, wants to get enough votes so that neither Clinton nor Trump gets 270 electoral votes, at which point the election gets tossed to the House of Representatives. I mean, that won't happen, but it's at least possible, and the way the math works I think it happens if he grabs a bunch of Clinton voters (plus a bunch of Trump voters, which is more plausible) in a couple key swing states.

Its pretty unlikely Ross Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote when he ran and zero electoral votes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part I take issue with, the fact that the two highest profile candidates automatically have some kind of ownership of the votes, and all votes cast are only considered based on what real or imaged effect the vote has on them.  If this is a zero sum game, isn't a vote for the first runner up the same as one for a third party candidate?  what makes the first runner up somehow different than a third party candidate if we're going to judge votes based on the outcome of a zero sum contest?  if I decide to vote for Johnson (effectively a vote for Hillary by this reasoning), and Hillary wins would my vote no longer be a protest vote?  If I vote for Stein and Hillary wins, what is my vote then?  Would my candidate no longer be a protest candidate?  Let's say we had 3 major parties instead of 2, as has happened in a few elections.  which one is running the spoiler candidate? which candidate would they be spoiling?  The answer to these and all other related questions relies on one thing--which major candidate the person answering is making a case for.  This is what I find frustrating about this kind of thinking, in both purpose and method it is an attempt to trivialize any candidate that isn't the preferred of the speaker.  A vote for trump is a vote for trump, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary, and a vote for anyone else is exactly and only a vote for them.  A candidate being ideologically similar, but coming from a larger party, does not make them somehow a better version of whatever candidate you would prefer.  The argument ideologically is unsound, pragmatically unproven, and I personally find it's purpose loathsome.  

 

Sorry if I'm coming off overly abrasive here, I don't mean to attack you or anything, it's just that I've heard this argument from both camps, with literally the names switched around and I'm absolutely fed up with it.

 

 

1.  If this is a zero sum game, isn't a vote for the first runner up the same as one for a third party candidate?

 

I guess from a mathematical standpoint, yes. That would be accurate. A vote for the runner up is a vote for defeat, the same way any vote for a third party candidate would be.

 

2. what makes the first runner up somehow different than a third party candidate if we're going to judge votes based on the outcome of a zero sum contest?

 

I would argue viability of candidacy.  A voter who votes for the runner up is voting with the expectation there is a reasonable chance that their candidate of choice becomes President. They think they're voting for winning the election, which a voter for a 3rd party candidate almost certainly is not.

 

3. if I decide to vote for Johnson (effectively a vote for Hillary by this reasoning), and Hillary wins would my vote no longer be a protest vote? If I vote for Stein and Hillary wins, what is my vote then? Would my candidate no longer be a protest candidate?

 

Yes it would be a protest vote, because your vote was still counted. You voted outside of the 2 party system and sent a message however minute that you preferred a 3rd party candidate for some reason that is known basically only to you. Your vote can be a protest vote and still contribute to the victory of one major party candidate over another. Still a protest vote! You may just be be happier with the outcome as a Stein supporter than a Johnson supporter if Hillary wins.

 

4. Let's say we had 3 major parties instead of 2, as has happened in a few elections.  which one is running the spoiler candidate?

 

I think it's pretty fair to say the candidate with the least votes would count as the spoiler. If that candidate did not exist those votes would instead be captured by one of the other 2 candidates (or wouldn't have been cast in the first place). There are 2 scenarios worth talking about in this case, I think: 

1. The 3 candidates get a virtually even split of 34/33/33. The disappearance of candidate C would then reapportion their votes among the first 2 candidates allowing for one candidate to get a majority of the votes. Candidate C is a viable candidate in this case, but this scenario is fairly unlikely. This would likely cause a runoff election between b/c and then a/the winner of b/c.

2. The far more likely scenario where it is something like 40/40/20, where A & B have significantly more votes than candidate C. Candidate C would need to capture virtually all of the votes from either candidate A or B in order to win a majority of the votes in this scenario, whereas candidate A or B need only convince half (+1) of candidate C's voters to win the majority.

If you want to use a different definition of spoiler, I would be very interested in hearing it, as I'm not married to my definition. Not yet at least, I'm still holding out for the slippery slope of marriage to fall that far.

 

5. which candidate would they be spoiling?

 

I think the spoiler candidate doesn't necessarily spoil another candidate, it instead spoils the contest between the 2 primary candidates. It absorbs votes that would otherwise more cleanly decide elections.

 

By voting for a 3rd party candidate you're no longer voting for who will win, but instead sending some other message. But because it's just a box you tick, there's no way of interpreting that message! It may be "I want this person to be our President." It may be "I want the Green Party to be eligible for public funding." It may be "This candidate most closely aligns with my ideological beliefs about how government should work." The ballot counters have no way of knowing what your motivation was in voting for a 3rd party candidate.

 

I think it's useful to bring state into context like Cordeos does. Like Minnestoa or California are going to go blue, and pretty handily. There are things to be gained by voting for a 3rd party candidate in those places. You could legitimize the Green party by contributing to eligibility of public funding for them. I think that swing states whose electoral votes are truly up for grabs is the place that these conversations are interesting and meaningful. If someone lives in Ohio and votes for Johnson or Stein they are essentially saying "I want to let other people decide who will be President, and I have a reason." The problem is that only they know that reason, and it might not be a very good reason! That action has consequences, and it may be that the voter is okay with that. I don't think it ever hurts to ask why a person wants to vote the way they do.

 

I do think that people try to scare other voters into voting the way they do, and that is frustrating, but I think it is important to think about the impacts of voting 3rd party in contested elections that have a lot on the line. The Republican and Democrats don't 'own' your vote, and you can allocate it however you see fit. I think there are (for me, personally compelling) arguments as to why you shouldn't vote third party in close races. (I do still think there are situations where a 3rd party candidate vote is beneficial, however.) 

 

By voting for a 3rd party candidate you're no longer voting for who will win, but instead sending some other message. But because it's just a box you tick, there's no way of interpreting that message! It may be "I want this person to be our President." It may be "I want the Green Party to be eligible for public funding." It may be "This candidate most closely aligns with my ideological beliefs about how government should work." The ballot counters have no way of knowing what your motivation was in voting for a 3rd party candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×